Broken Car Window at BaseBall Field

[cudlink]

Bergen County New Jersey. I am a Volunteer Coach for PAL baseball. I was coaching a game when my Car Window was hit by a baseball during Batting practice on another field. The cost to repair the Window cost $479 minus my $200 deductable. The PAL organization says it is not liable and Parking is at your own risk. There are no signs posted stating that fact. Am I entitled to some relief?

Regards,

Coach.

 

[racer72]

Nope, you assume the risk when you park next to a ballpark. Implied liability assumes you know the risk of parking next to a location when potential damage to you vehicle may occur.

 

[cudlink]

Follow-up Question

Nope, you assume the risk when you park next to a ballpark. Implied liability assumes you know the risk of parking next to a location when potential damage to you vehicle may occur.

WHAT ABOUT SECONDARY ASSUMPTION? The kids playing on that field are too big. They were suppose to be playing on another field.

 

[TCB4U2B2B]

Doesn't Matter

Hello: cudlink

As the header indicates...It doesn't matter.

Whether you agree or disagree with the prior posting, it is absolutely correct. You assumed that risk posted or not.

Not everything has to be posted as such. There are no posted warnings of a failure to stop at red lights to avoid getting a ticket or at a stop sign. None posted warning of the possiblity of being involved in an accident for failure to STOP. It's a known fact an accident and or ticket is possible for a failure to STOP!

Want relief? Take AlkaSelser.

Question Answered.
This Case Closed. Next Case!
Regards and Good Luck.
TCB4U2B2B
At Your Service.
Providing No Real Legal Advice. Administering "Huge Doses of Reality" on Demand or as Required...
Personal Quote: "When In Doubt, Consider All Your Options and Allow Common Sense To Prevail."

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

The assumption of risk doctrine would operate as a complete bar to your recovery where your assumption of the risk is primary. Primary assumption of risk exists where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the ball park owes no legal duty to protect you from the particular risk of harm that caused the damage.

Secondary assumption of risk exists in those situations where the ball park owes a duty of care to you, but you proceed to encounter a known risk imposed by the ball park’s breach of duty.

Assuming that the players were "too big" for the baseball diamond where they were playing, three facts are evident:

1. It was "reasonably foreseeable" that such players would be playing.

2. It was "reasonably foreseeable" that a foul ball would go into the parking lot.

3. You knew, or should and could have known, that your vehicle could be damaged.

Even if you could prove that the Park owed you a duty, the governmental immunities would kick in. Parks are not required to post guards or to "shoo" people away from playing in the parks, no matter what their size. There is no "wrong" place in a park for any size person to utilize.

In summary, you can't win.

IAAL

[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 06-12-2001 at 01:25 PM]

 

[cudlink]

Thank you for your advice. What about Knight vs Jewett case and Secondary Assumption of Risk.

First of all it was a Home Run Ball during Batting Practice by Boys that normally play on a field where if a ball is hit it will go into the woods. The field the boys were playing on was a Girls Softball field where no ball in the 45 years history has been hit in the parking lot.

MY comment is if the organization liable under the Secondary Assumption since the fence around that field is not high enogh to keep balls out of the parking lot.

This same thing happened to another coach 2-weeks earlier. Is this not a precedent?

Thanks for all your advice.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

No ! Most every State, including New Jersey, either follows, or has their own spin on, the "Knight" court's ruling. And, they all follow the conclusion in Knight. It doesn't matter, however, about the "45 years" - - no guards are needed to "shoo" people away, and it was still "reasonably foreseeable" that a ball (hit by whomever) would wind up in the parking lot, doing damage. It doesn't matter how high or low the fences are either.

You knew about the fences, and you accepted the reasonable foreseeable consequences by parking there - - either by virtue of the primary assumption, or the secondary assumption rule.

Hey, give it a try in Small Claims court, if you have the urge. You have nothing to lose that you haven't already lost.

But, you'll still lose.

IAAL

 

[cudlink]

Thank you I got it! Thanks for playing our game we have lot's of parting gifts for me!
Thanks!

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Just remember when you file your lawsuit:

"Even if you could prove that the Park owed you a duty, the governmental immunities would kick in."

Good luck to you.

IAAL

 

[LegalBeagle]

this little pinkie had none,
and this little pinkie went.. err, where did it go?? Where did my little pinkie go!

 

[cudlink]

Why did you bother to write such an intelegent statement! When Replying to a message, please be considerate, respectful and polite.
Remember, there is a human being on the other side of that computer screen.!

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Why did you bother to write such an intelegent statement! When Replying to a message, please be considerate, respectful and polite.
Remember, there is a human being on the other side of that computer screen.!

My response:

Sometimes, we can tell when LegalBeagle has gone Scuba diving. He comes up just a little too fast, and writes with the "bends".

He usually gets over it fairly fast.

IAAL

 

[cudlink]

Thank you I'm Always Liable!